Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

good question. i think it kind of depends on how the discussion  
goes.  ideally i would like to have it wrapped up around the  
beginning of september (so around 4 weeks) but that's flexible if the  
discussion seems like it needs to continue...

On Aug 10, 2006, at 5:33 AM, Paul Keller wrote:

> Hey Mia,
>
> thanks a lot for posting this and doing such an excellent summary of
> the previous discussions. i have one small question at the moment, is
> there a deadline for the public discussion period or will it go on as
> long as necessary?
>
> all the best from amsterdam,
> paul
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Mia Garlick wrote:
>
> > # Public Discussion of Version 3.0 Launched:
> >
> > As was mentioned a little while ago (http://lists.ibiblio.org/
> > pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-May/003557.html), we are looking to move
> > ahead with versioning the CC licenses up to version 3.0 to improve
> > the clarity of the terms of the licenses and to address some
> > concerns of one of our first and very prominent license adopters —
> > MIT, with their OpenCourseWare project (http://ocw.mit.edu/), and
> > to also take on board the concerns of the Debian group about the
> > clarity of some provisions of our licenses.
> >
> > # New US and "generic" license
> >
> > Another big feature of version 3.0 is that we will be spinning off
> > what has been called the "generic" license to now be the US license
> > and have crafted a new "generic" license that is based on the
> > language of international IP treaties and takes effect according to
> > the national implementation of those treaties.  This may only be
> > something that gets IP lawyers excited but I thought it might be
> > good to share this draft with the community as well in order to
> > ensure full transparency and in case people were interested and/or
> > had any comments.
> >
> > # Anti-DRM language - possible parallel distribution language
> >
> > Finally, there has been much discussion - preparatory to releasing
> > these drafts to the public - about whether to amend the CC licenses
> > to include a "parallel distribution" amendment to the existing
> > "anti-DRM" (or more correctly an "anti-TPM" (technological
> > protection measures)) clause of the CC licenses.  As you probably
> > now, the existing clause of the Creative Commons licenses states  
> > that:
> >
> > "You [being the licensee, not the licensor] may not distribute,
> > publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform
> > the Work with any technological measures that control access or use
> > of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License
> > Agreement."
> >
> > As you can see from the drafts below, version 3.0 includes
> > amendments designed to make this language clearer.  But there are
> > some in the Debian community that feel that this renders the CC
> > licenses inconsistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines
> > (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) (although the
> > group has deemed the FDL, which has similar if not stronger "anti-
> > DRM" language in it, DFSG-free http://www.debian.org/News/
> > 2006/20060316) and that if CC introduces parallel distribution
> > language we could achieve both freedom of content and freedom to
> > code for open and closed systems (see this discussion for an
> > explanation of the reasoning behind allowing TPMs on free content:
> > http://evan.prodromou.name/Free_content_and_DRM). The parallel
> > distribution provision essentially says that a licensee can apply a
> > technological protection measure to content only if they also
> > release the content in an unrestricted format.
> >
> > However, our international affiliates (http://creativecommons.org/
> > worldwide), as well as others in our community, are strongly
> > opposed to the introduction of this amendment for various reasons,
> > including: (1) lack of demonstrated use cases showing a strong need
> > among CC licensees for this kind of an exception to the existing
> > "anti-TPM" language; (2) risks of unduly complicating the licenses
> > which defeats alot of the point of CC licenses being to be simple
> > and easy to use and understand; and, (3) the strong opposition to
> > technological protection measures by many in the CC community
> > generally.
> >
> > Consequently, CC is currently not proposing to include this new
> > parallel distribution language as part of version 3.0; however,
> > because it is not clear whether the Debian community will declare
> > the CC licenses DFSG-free without it and because it represents an
> > interesting proposal, we felt that it was appropriate to circulate
> > the proposal as part of the public discussions of version 3.0.
> >
> > The discussion about version 3.0 will occur on this cc-licenses list.
> >
> > Below are drafts of the US v 3.0 license, the new "generic" v 3.0
> > license and the parallel distribution language.
> >
> > <BY-NC-SA v 3 (080806) (US).pdf>
> >
> > <BY-NC-SA v3 (0808060) (generic).pdf>
> >
> >
> >
> > <2ndmarkupDRMclause#2.pdf>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> --
> waag society | nieuwmarkt 4 | NL - 1012 CR amsterdam
> e: paul AT waag.org | t: +31 20 557 9898 | f: +31 20 557 9880
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses